I finally got around to watching this movie last weekend. The music was hauntingly beautiful and Sayuri's rain dance was magnificent.

When the credits rolled and I saw that the movie was adapted from a book by Arthur Golden, a 50 year old man from Tennessee, I wondered how much I had seen was pure bunk. Granted Mr. Golden holds a degree in Japanese Art History and speaks Mandarin Chinese, but he wasn't raised in the culture and wonder if he could have lost something in translation.

I have always been led to believe that Geisha were NOT prostitutes. However, this film leads one to believe otherwise. Even if the Geisha only "performs" once, and the house is given money for her deflowering, is that not money for sex, i.e. prostitution?

Can those of you more knowledgable in this area give me your opinion of this film and share insights you hold?

alkalineangel

The book is so much better, I suggest you pick it up. Geisha are artists...and the book goes into great detail...he wrote this after speaking to "sayuri" who was the woman in the movie. She would only agree to talk with him after all the men in her life had died, out of respect...

Yes, they do give of themselves for money, but ultimately, their lives were more than just that.